how are you supposed to defend yourself without a box?

[Powerdork]

But this thread isn't supposed to be a RAW debate; it's supposed to help the original poster with squishy mage problems.

[Segev]

But this thread isn't supposed to be a RAW debate; it's supposed to help the original poster with squishy mage problems.

Which is why he said to label what you're talking about, whether it's RAW or not. Also, the OP did say that his DM runs by the RAW.

[magicalmagicman]

But this thread isn't supposed to be a RAW debate; it's supposed to help the original poster with squishy mage problems.

When a person claims what the OP is doing is illegal instead of talking about squishy mage problems, it becomes a RAW debate.

[Psyren]

There's more than a little hypocrisy inherent in waxing poetic about the benefits of strict adherence to most holy RAW in an online discussion + demanding that anyone with an opinion that runs contrary to any underlying assumption or interpretation qualify said opinion... when that discussion centers around a custom-engineered psicrystal-operable box that isn't actually found in any of the rulebooks.

But at the risk of repeating myself - convincing me of this idea's viability is not and should not be the goal of the OP or anyone else who likes it. I'm not their DM; their DM is in fact fine with this item. My primary purpose in this thread was to concur with Crake that readied actions represent a weakness of this box idea that could be exploited by a savvy opponent. If stating any contrary opinion alongside that message is truly a cause of this much distress, then I apologize, and urge the OP and their supporters to go forth with my blessing - however little it is needed. I've edited my first post in the thread to this effect. I sincerely hope this clears the air.

[magicalmagicman]

psicrystal-operable box that isn't actually found in any of the rulebooks.

Diminuitive creature operable doors and windows is in the core rulebook. Just because it's not assembled into box form doesn't mean it's not in the rules.

But at the risk of repeating myself - convincing me of this idea's viability is not and should not be the goal of the OP or anyone else who likes it. I'm not their DM; their DM is in fact fine with this item. My primary purpose in this thread was to concur with Crake that readied actions represent a weakness of this box idea that could be exploited by a savvy opponent. If stating any contrary opinion alongside that message is truly a cause of this much distress, then I apologize, and urge the OP and their supporters to go forth with my blessing - however little it is needed. I've edited my first post in the thread to this effect. I sincerely hope this clears the air.

We're not talking about convincing you. No one is talking about convincing you. What we are talking about is you not stating clearly that you're completely disregarding the rules when you are completely disregarding the rules.

Also saying "convincing dms" in a ruling debate. We quote the DMG for you, you say "convince dm" as your response in a rule debate. Convincing DMs has nothing to do with how the rules work. And it is infuriating that you always resort to that when we are talking about how the rules work.

So get that silly idea that we're trying to convince you out of your head. We just want you to state that you're completely disregarding the rules when you're completely disregarding the rules.

[Psyren]

Diminuitive creature operable doors and windows is in the core rulebook. Just because it's not assembled into box form doesn't mean it's not in the rules.

That would be what we're agreeing to disagree on, yes.

[Aeson]

I am curious - why do you need a latch on the flap in the first place? It's not that hard to create a flap that, practically speaking, only opens from one side - just have it open outwards, with the exterior face of the flap flush with the exterior of the box and snug enough that it's difficult for anything to slip between the flap and the edge of the opening it's covering when it's closed and very unlikely to open up on its own.

[magicalmagicman]

I am curious - why do you need a latch on the flap in the first place? It's not that hard to create a flap that, practically speaking, only opens from one side - just have it open outwards, with the exterior face of the flap flush with the exterior of the box and snug enough that it's difficult for anything to slip between the flap and the edge of the opening it's covering when it's closed and very unlikely to open up on its own.

I think the OP is using a bar and not a latch (latch is Segev's box design), and he said the flap opens only inward which I assume is so that the bar can block it from opening. And I assume it's so that if an enemy creature does make it to the box, it is forced to spend actions trying to break open the flap or break the box instead of being able to attack the OP immediately. It only takes a move action to open the flap. Needing to spend standard actions with a chance of failure is better than needing to spend only a move action.

[Segev]

I think the OP is using a bar and not a latch (latch is Segev's box design), and he said the flap opens only inward which I assume is so that the bar can block it from opening. And I assume it's so that if an enemy creature does make it to the box, it is forced to spend actions trying to break open the flap or break the box instead of being able to attack the OP immediately. It only takes a move action to open the flap. Needing to spend standard actions with a chance of failure is better than needing to spend only a move action.

I was using latch interchangeably with bar. Though yes, I was picturing it opening outwards, and also question whether the bar is necessary. I agree that an outwards-opening flap that shuts such that there's nothing to grip on the outside to open it should do the job just fine, and not need anything more than a free action to be done as part of manifesting to open, manifest, and let it fall shut.

[magicalmagicman]

I was using latch interchangeably with bar. Though yes, I was picturing it opening outwards, and also question whether the bar is necessary. I agree that an outwards-opening flap that shuts such that there's nothing to grip on the outside to open it should do the job just fine, and not need anything more than a free action to be done as part of manifesting to open, manifest, and let it fall shut.

I think the bar can handle more punishment. I am not an engineer though so it's just a guess on my part.

[Segev]

I think the bar can handle more punishment. I am not an engineer though so it's just a guess on my part.

Depends how the thing's designed. If the flap closes into a slot sized for it, but with a lip to catch it that's significantly thick in both how much of the flap it catches and how deep into the box it goes, it will take significantly more punishment than a bar. Really, though, the way hit points and objects work, this is irrelevant because the 20 hp that the whole side of the box has will be plenty small enough to bust through without needing to specially-target the flap. The consideration for the flap is primarily whether you can target the psion while it's open; this is where the readied action line of discussion comes into it.

[sorcererlover]

convincing me of this idea's viability is not and should not be the goal of the OP or anyone else who likes it.

I think there is a critical failure to communicate here.

so please say upfront that you are talking about your table so we dont have a misunderstanding and end up getting frustrated at the end.

So you should say whether you're using the "3.5 d&d ruleset" or not when you give your opinion so the OP (and his GM) knows that your opinion is unrelated to the "3.5 d&d ruleset".

So please, state whether you are talking about your vision or not.

Which is why he said to label what you're talking about, whether it's RAW or not. Also, the OP did say that his DM runs by the RAW.

No one is trying to convince you of anything. We're all asking that you clearly state that you are talking about your table and not the "3.5 d&d ruleset" whenever you give your "opinion" so that we know whether what you're saying is on topic and relevant to the OP, or is completely irrelevant, off-topic, and doesn't help the OP in the slightest.

---

That would be what we're agreeing to disagree on, yes.

The ruleset covers two halflings spending their actions opening, closing, locking, and unlocking a small door during combat.
The ruleset covers making your own walls, doors, barrels, boxes, etc.
The ruleset covers diminuitive creatures spending their actions opening, closing, locking, and unlocking doors within their carry weight.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm making it clear to the OP that you are completely wrong.

[Xervous]

I’d contend that there exists a precedent for creatures being unable to manipulate objects with their feet. What’s the caveat? Manipulate is not a game defined term and is being used here by different individuals to mean different things. Precision manipulation and pulling on an otherwise smooth surfaced rectangular object with no explicitly defined hooks, handles, levers or otherwise are simply not possible for feet. If you wish to accept that precision manipulation is possible with generic, non specialized limbs you run into the absurdity that a human could hold a shortsword apiece with each foot.

The draconomicon has verbiage calling out dragon paws as not being prehensile but still being capable of crude manipulations (the implied standard for non-prehensile being no manipulation). The SRD’s only mention of prehensile is found on the rust monster entry (its antennae of all things). So RAW monkeys do not have prehensile tails nor feet which may strike some as odd but that’s RAW. With such context I am inclined to agree that as per RAW there is nothing explicitly giving psicrystal feet the capability to manipulate objects.

As is the case with the monkey the GM could make a ruling, a house rule or other clarification (no, these are a different kind of monkey that do have prehensile tails and feet) but doing so is an expression of the GM’s opinion.

In the absence of details about the flap a bare bones interpretation produced a scenario where the psicrystal could only move it by manipulating (an act requiring prehensile feet that it is not explicitly detailed with) rather than simply pushing. For such a case I see no conclusion beyond that of the GM being permissive if a psicrystal can manipulate stuff with its feet. As a GM it is well within their right, but it is a departure from true RAW and thus open to debate and commentary on its validity.

Additionally: for the sake of humoring us nitpicking playgrounders could you ask your GM what the break DC is for the diminutive door?

[magicalmagicman]

I’d contend that there exists a precedent for creatures being unable to manipulate objects with their feet. What’s the caveat? Manipulate is not a game defined term and is being used here by different individuals to mean different things. Precision manipulation and pulling on an otherwise smooth surfaced rectangular object with no explicitly defined hooks, handles, levers or otherwise are simply not possible for feet. If you wish to accept that precision manipulation is possible with generic, non specialized limbs you run into the absurdity that a human could hold a shortsword apiece with each foot.

The draconomicon has verbiage calling out dragon paws as not being prehensile but still being capable of crude manipulations (the implied standard for non-prehensile being no manipulation). The SRD’s only mention of prehensile is found on the rust monster entry (its antennae of all things). So RAW monkeys do not have prehensile tails nor feet which may strike some as odd but that’s RAW. With such context I am inclined to agree that as per RAW there is nothing explicitly giving psicrystal feet the capability to manipulate objects.

As is the case with the monkey the GM could make a ruling, a house rule or other clarification (no, these are a different kind of monkey that do have prehensile tails and feet) but doing so is an expression of the GM’s opinion.

In the absence of details about the flap a bare bones interpretation produced a scenario where the psicrystal could only move it by manipulating (an act requiring prehensile feet that it is not explicitly detailed with) rather than simply pushing. For such a case I see no conclusion beyond that of the GM being permissive if a psicrystal can manipulate stuff with its feet. As a GM it is well within their right, but it is a departure from true RAW and thus open to debate and commentary on its validity.

In the OP's scenario the psicrystal is simply pushing the bar 1ft with its body that is propelled by its legs. Like a dog pushing something with its head.

You are correct that the rules say to take animal limbs into consideration. I think i remember something about wolves being incapable of climbing trees mentioned somewhere in the DMG. But all this is moot because any creature that can propel itself forward can push something while its propelling forward.

[Xervous]

In the OP's scenario the psicrystal is simply pushing the bar 1ft with its body that is propelled by its legs. Like a dog pushing something with its head.

You are correct that the rules say to take animal limbs into consideration. I think i remember something about wolves being incapable of climbing trees mentioned somewhere in the DMG. But all this is moot because any creature that can propel itself forward can push something while its propelling forward.

It is far from moot when the original exchange hinged upon the flap being operated by the psicrystal and the interior bar preventing the flap from moving, a situation which at its simplest leaves no option outside the psicrystal pulling on a presumed flat surface with prehensile appendages it lacks.

[gogogome]

Regarding the climb speed, Psyren is correct that a climb speed does not grant "stickiness".

Climb

A creature with a climb speed has a +8 racial bonus on all Climb checks. The creature must make a Climb check to climb any wall or slope with a DC of more than 0, but it always can choose to take 10 even if rushed or threatened while climbing. The creature climbs at the given speed while climbing. If it chooses an accelerated climb it moves at double the given climb speed (or its base land speed, whichever is lower) and makes a single Climb check at a -5 penalty. Creatures cannot run while climbing. A creature retains its Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) while climbing, and opponents get no special bonus on their attacks against a climbing creature.

20 An uneven surface with some narrow handholds and footholds, such as a typical wall in a dungeon or ruins.

Psicrystals can take 10, have a +8 bonus for having the climb speed, and their 15 dex gives a +2 so a Psicrystal can hit a DC20 Climb check. And the Psion can create these narrow handholds and footholds while manifesting Minor Creation. It's definitely lower than DC20 since making handholds in a wall is easier than making a lock. I'd make the whole box at most DC15 because I don't see how it's more complicated than making a Bell.

Segev's box design is probably DC20. A latch is no different than a lock, nor is making perfectly fitting doors and walls.

[Draconi Redfir]

nah nah, the psicrystal isn't operating the flap at all. that's the psion's job. the psycristal is just pushing the bar that seals the flap closed back and forth.

think something like this.

Spoiler: Image

Show

if this were the latch (It's not, but pretend it is for a second) all the crystal would be doing is rubbing it's body up against that little ball there and pushing it forwards with it's body. presumably either moving or having some system in place that lets it do it the other direction in a similar way.

[Xervous]

nah nah, the psicrystal isn't operating the flap at all. that's the psion's job. the psycristal is just pushing the bar that seals the flap closed back and forth.

think something like this.

Spoiler: Image

Show

if this were the latch (It's not, but pretend it is for a second) all the crystal would be doing is rubbing it's body up against that little ball there and pushing it forwards with it's body. presumably either moving or having some system in place that lets it do it the other direction in a similar way.

In the current proposition this is true. Clarifications arrived to differentiate the actual evolving design from the flawed original presentation yet people are seizing on early comments that were simply pointing out how the box’s design was flawed and doing so in a manner that caused them to take offense for some reason. Psicrystal on flap moved to psicrystal pushing and pulling the bar. From there it arrived at the psicrystal only pushing while people attacked Psyren for prior comments that were relevant during earlier evolutions of the box but were not applicable to the latest box design. It’s not unlike presenting a box on wheels, calling it a car, someone pointing out it’s not powered, adding in propulsion and saying the previous comment has always been false.

[Draconi Redfir]

ah, well alright then.

[magicalmagicman]

In the current proposition this is true. Clarifications arrived to differentiate the actual evolving design from the flawed original presentation yet people are seizing on early comments that were simply pointing out how the box’s design was flawed and doing so in a manner that caused them to take offense for some reason. Psicrystal on flap moved to psicrystal pushing and pulling the bar. From there it arrived at the psicrystal only pushing while people attacked Psyren for prior comments that were relevant during earlier evolutions of the box but were not applicable to the latest box design. It’s not unlike presenting a box on wheels, calling it a car, someone pointing out it’s not powered, adding in propulsion and saying the previous comment has always been false.

You're misunderstanding something here.

So if we take this thread as an example, when Psyren said Psicrystals cannot push objects, he's not saying it doesn't work within the rules, he's saying in his vision of D&D Psicrystals cannot manipulate objects so he will never allow Psicrystals to manipulate objects in his game regardless of what the rules say. But he doesn't say that. He just says Psicrystals cannot manipulate objects and when presented with RAW from multiple posters his responses go back to "convince gm of this or that" without ever addressing the RAW, or presenting RAW of his own. Which resulted in newguydude1 losing his composure in this thread and in others.

Psyren is maintaining his position that Psicrystals cannot push objects. So he is rejecting the latest box design. And his reasoning for his disagreement is a mystery because when asked, he responds by changing the topic to convincing GMs and how no one should try to convince him.

So our guess is that he's flagrantly ignoring the rules at his table, is not interested in partaking in a discussion about the rules, but for some reason calls the OP out as doing something illegal. Who knows why. So our contention is that if he is flagrantly ignoring the rules when he says the OP is doing something illegal, he should say so upfront so we don't mistake his irrelevant comments as a discussion about how the rules work.

[Xervous]

You're misunderstanding something here.



Psyren is maintaining his position that Psicrystals cannot push objects. So he is rejecting the latest box design. And his reasoning for his disagreement is a mystery because when asked, he responds by changing the topic to convincing GMs and how no one should try to convince him.

So our guess is that he's flagrantly ignoring the rules at his table, is not interested in partaking in a discussion about the rules, but for some reason calls the OP out as doing something illegal. Who knows why. So our contention is that if he is flagrantly ignoring the rules when he says the OP is doing something illegal, he should say so upfront so we don't mistake his irrelevant comments as a discussion about how the rules work.

I’m understanding things perfectly fine here and won’t stand for you misrepresenting my words if things follow the given trend. At no point do I see an outright claim that the pushing is invalid. This whole thing rides on the faulty assumption that all comments must be explicitly labeled as such else they are read as strictest statement of RAW. It is common to ask the GM for guidance on uncertain situations as they are the absolute arbitrator of events. I see comments amounting to the situation being something of concern (as evidenced by the OP turning to the playground for a discussion) and a clarifying note that if there is uncertainty over the box’s functionality it is up to the GM to resolve it.

[sorcererlover]

At no point do I see an outright claim that the pushing is invalid.

pushing is pushing the bar <----- so it no longer covers the flap so i can lift it myself (it only opens inwards otherwise bar would be pointless), and the pushing it back ------> so it covers the flap.

pushing bar is probably best route so i can use 5 x 2.5 = 12.5lb bar.

I still don't buy it but once again, I'm not your GM, so I'll leave it there.

1234567890

[Xervous]

Looks to me like “wouldn’t fly at my table, go ask your GM”. Fault is on you for adding meaning that isn’t there.

[sorcererlover]

Looks to me like “wouldn’t fly at my table, go ask your GM”. Fault is on you for adding meaning that isn’t there.

Moving goalposts now?

First you say it's wrong to berate someone about past comments that he change his mind about.
Then you say he never said psicrystals can't push and took offense when someone told you that you misunderstood.
Now you're saying it's our fault for adding meaning that's not there?

Can we at least agree that you were wrong twice and you misunderstood everything twice?

[Segev]

Can we at least agree that you were wrong twice and you misunderstood everything twice?

I think browbeating people for mea culpas when they're expressing agreement is counterproductive.

We should be focused on helping the OP, not on already-solved problems in our communication. We know where people stand, at this stage, so the OP can judge clearly based on who's speaking what their pedigree is. If nothing else, since the OP wants pure-RAW rulings, we can safely suggest he disregard comments that are not backed up by a quote from the RAW, or a clear reference thereto.

[sorcererlover]

I think browbeating people for mea culpas when they're expressing agreement is counterproductive.

We should be focused on helping the OP, not on already-solved problems in our communication. We know where people stand, at this stage, so the OP can judge clearly based on who's speaking what their pedigree is. If nothing else, since the OP wants pure-RAW rulings, we can safely suggest he disregard comments that are not backed up by a quote from the RAW, or a clear reference thereto.

I agree. And I apologize for any thread derailment because of this. I will drop the subject and get back to the box!

[Xervous]

Moving goalposts now?

First you say it's wrong to berate someone about past comments that he change his mind about.
Then you say he never said psicrystals can't push and took offense when someone told you that you misunderstood.
Now you're saying it's our fault for adding meaning that's not there?

Can we at least agree that you were wrong twice and you misunderstood everything twice?

Addressing points in order.

Firstly my initial observations were of the response to the “manipulation” segment wherein strong doubt is cast upon a GM allowing a psicrystal to manipulate objects with its decidedly non-prehensile feet and the misplaced backlash. This portion has been unchanged throughout and appears to be the sparking off point of the bad feelings.

Was it stated outright as “no, psicrystals can’t push”? Most decidedly not. It was colored as a gray area to emphasize that the exact functionality in the matter is up to the gm when peculiar propositions like pull-capable legs had been brought to the table.

If there was precedent on this forum for all comments to default to purest RAW in absence of explicit callouts that what follows is opinion then my expectations would be misplaced on the nature of discourse here (the forum as a whole). Operating under such a nonstandard assumption (all words as RAW, breach of RAW is reprehensible) has led to polite suggestions the OP explore the established uncertainty resolution mechanics being met with unusual hostility.


As for the matter of the box I am still concerned how the flap’s break DC is ruled.

Standard wooden door, craftsmanship >> material for adjusting DC but no explicit rules on that. DC 13 for medium door, but no scaling factors for size. If the GM rules that the DC scales by +-4 for increasing/decreasing sizes that would make it a trivial DC 1!! Rule that DC does not change with size and you get Gargantuan wooden doors being DC 13. Pick a number because reasons. All avenues to determine the flap break DC must go through the GM and are not resolvable by pure RAW. (And lets look at the bar too while we’re at it).

[sorcererlover]

As for the matter of the box I am still concerned how the flap’s break DC is ruled.

Standard wooden door, craftsmanship >> material for adjusting DC but no explicit rules on that. DC 13 for medium door, but no scaling factors for size. If the GM rules that the DC scales by +-4 for increasing/decreasing sizes that would make it a trivial DC 1!! Rule that DC does not change with size and you get Gargantuan wooden doors being DC 13. Pick a number because reasons. All avenues to determine the flap break DC must go through the GM and are not resolvable by pure RAW. (And lets look at the bar too while we’re at it).

The flap or door is made of bronzewood. Bronzewood is actually as tough as metal but lighter (arms and equipment guide). According to this https://www.d20srd.org/srd/dungeons.htm
the break dc of a 2inch iron door is 28.

Now if we look at this

Barred Doors

When characters try to bash down a barred door, it’s the quality of the bar that matters, not the material the door is made of. It takes a DC 25 Strength check to break through a door with a wooden bar, and a DC 30 Strength check if the bar is made of iron. Characters can attack the door and destroy it instead, leaving the bar hanging in the now-open doorway.

DC30 Strength check to break down an iron (bronzewood) barred door. So whether the break DC is 28 or 30 is dependent on whether the enemies are trying to break the door or the bar.

I don't think size of door matters for break DC of a barred door. A longer bar does not make it tougher to break. In fact a shorter bar is much stronger than a longer bar.

So that's where I'd land on the break DC. DC 28 or 30. The HP of the door is the same as the HP of the entire wall because HP is dependent on thickness, not surface area so there's no reason to try and smash a door when you can just smash the wall.

[Xervous]

I don’t recall a craft DC being called out for the box and/or whether or not it qualifies as a complex object. With a sufficiently high craft check there may be grounds for it qualifying as a higher degree of craftsmanship for which there is precedent to adjust the break DC upwards. If every door regardless of size gets the listed values this probably isn’t necessary.